1 / 31

Week 4

Week 4 . What you really want to know. Objectives. Government and Non-gov’t involvement Bell and patents Post Patent World Kingsbury commitment 1934 Communications Act Monopoly challenges Pre/Post-MFJ Telecom Act of 1996. Legal Aspects of Telecommunication.

Jimmy
Download Presentation

Week 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Week 4 What you really want to know

  2. Objectives • Government and Non-gov’t involvement • Bell and patents • Post Patent World • Kingsbury commitment • 1934 Communications Act • Monopoly challenges • Pre/Post-MFJ • Telecom Act of 1996

  3. Legal Aspects of Telecommunication

  4. Early Signaling and Telegraphy A Chappe semaphore tower near Saverne, France

  5. France’s Semaphore map

  6. Early signaling and Telegraphy • Semaphore Proposal to do the same in U.S. • Morse – Painter saw a demonstration on electro-magnetism on a return from Europe • More noted for code that telegraph • Demonstration for Postmaster General- $30K grant -1843. • Ezra Cornell plow that buries cable.

  7. Early signaling and Telegraphy • Multiple Telegraph Companies • Railroad Right of Ways • Civil War • WU emerges as the strongest • By 1872 WU largest monopoly in the U.S. • 1876 Telegraph reached coast-coast

  8. A.G. Bell • Deaf Mother and wife devoted life to sounds. • Work on sending multiple signals over telegraph. Edison and Gray also working on this problem. • Offered patent to WU for $100K, WU Pres –”toy” • Raised Capital by barnstorming

  9. Bell Telephone • Created in 1877- Most valuable patent. • Acquired Edison’s Carbon microphone from WU. “Can you hear me now?” • 1880 -30K phones; 1886 – 150K phones • WU agrees not to enter telephony, Bell agrees not to get into telegraphy. • Limited financing -sold franchises - RBOCs. • Over 18 years 600 legal cases.

  10. Early Antitrust Measures • In 1882, American Bell gained a controlling interest in the Western Electric Company, and together, they became known as the Bell System. • In 1885, American Telegraph and Telephone (AT&T) was incorporated as a subsidiary of the Bell System, with the aim of constructing a long distance telephone network and providing long distance service (to Bell System subscribers only). • By 1899, AT&T bought out American Bell and became the parent company of the Bell System. • After acquiring dozens of new patents from other companies and exponentially increasing its value, the Bell Telephone Company became American Bell in 1880.

  11. Post-patent World • Competitors form USTA. • J.P. Morgan controls both AT&T and WU buying up competitors at an alarming rate. • ICC responsible for regulation • Fearing complaints would cause US attorney to act. • Nathan Kingsbury AT&T VP has agreement with US Attys. 1913

  12. Post-patent World • 1893 Patent expires • Competition springs up • Small “Hometown” companies offer service • Bell has 50% of market. GTE major competitor • Bell refuses them to interconnect. • More companies, more complaints • Bell Co. stifling competition

  13. Kingsbury Commitment • Kingsbury Commitment - fearing that the government might use its antitrust laws against it, AT&T approached the U.S. Department of Justice in 1913 with a proposal for reducing its monopoly. • As a result of the Kingsbury Commitment, AT&T functioned as a regulated monopoly from 1913 to 1984. Being a regulated monopoly meant that although AT&T was allowed to provide services without any competitors, it was subject to a great deal of constraints dictated by the government

  14. Kingsbury Agreement • Allow independents to connect with A&T • AT&T divested from WU. • AT&T to stop buying independents • AT&T sole telephone in geographical areas. Where no presence - competitors. • AT&T given long lines. Had to connect to others.

  15. 1934 Communications Act • Created FCC to oversee Phone Co. • Regulate costs of service • States formed PUC, PCCs • Stable, Expensive, Bombproof Nets • 99% of calls thru 99% of time. • Universal access – Pay for it? • Long distance subs local calls.

  16. Hush-a-phone/Carterfone • No non-AT&T devices on the Net. • No “Foreign attachments” • Challenged no harm, no foul. • Created CPE industry • Rolm, Mitel, Northern Telcom • $10 phones to Sophisticated PBXs. • First time AT&T had competition

  17. Challenging the Monopoly • The restriction against interconnecting to AT&T’s telephone network was challenged in 1965 and eventually lifted in 1968 through the Carterfone decision. • In 1969, a company called Microwave Communications International (MCI) began carrying business phone calls over a private microwave link between St. Louis, Missouri and Chicago. Because MCI didn’t use the Bell System, it did not have to pay AT&T for use of its infrastructure.

  18. PRE MFJ • Until 1984, AT&T consisted of the following: • AT&T, the parent company and long-distance provider • 22 Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), the telephone companies that provided local service in different regions of the nation • Western Electric, the manufacturing arm of the company • Bell Telephone Laboratories, the research and development arm of the company, responsible for innovation and new technology

  19. MFJ – Green Decision • 1970s MCI filed to be a specialized common carrier • 1976 files anti-trust suit Justice Dept. joined suit. • 1982 MFJ by Judge Green

  20. Results of MFJ • Broke up AT&T into 7 RBOCs /AT&T • AT&T kept LD, WE, and Cinci Bell • RBOCs could not offer LD • SPRint, MCI - major competitors • “Equal Access” Charges? • Lower long distances rates –local charges went up.

  21. AT&T Divestiture • The Modified Final Judgment (MFJ) - accompanied by over 500 pages of instructions detailing exactly how AT&T should be divided. • The Justice Department’s primary goal for breaking up AT&T was to spur innovation and competition in a field that would prove even more vital in the latter part of the century than it had in the first.

  22. AT&T Divestiture • As part of the MFJ, AT&T was forced to divide. • From the 22 former Bell Operating Companies that provided local phone service and phone directories, the MFJ created seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). • The business that AT&T kept was separated into two divisions: AT&T Technologies, which handled the innovation and production of new technologies, and AT&T Communications, which handled long distance phone service. • The research and development business, formerly Bell Laboratories, became Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) and was jointly owned by the new RBOCs.

  23. AT&T Divestiture

  24. AT&T Divestiture

  25. Current Ownership

  26. AT&T Divestiture • Until the divestiture of AT&T, the distinction between local service and long distance service was not clear. • In the MFJ, Judge Harold Greene subdivided each RBOC region into Local Access and Transport Areas (LATAs), roughly equivalent to area codes at that time. • Phone service within a specific LATA was known as intraLATA service. • Companies that supply local, or intraLATA telephone service are known as local exchange carriers (LECs).

  27. AT&T Divestiture

  28. AT&T Divestiture • InterLATA - a service that allowed for calls between LATAs was known. • Interexchange carriers (IXCs) - another name for InterLATA service providers. Examples of IXCs include Sprint, MCI (now WorldCom), and AT&T. • Equal access - requiring local phone companies to provide equal access to their facilities meant that AT&T no longer had an unfair advantage over new competitors in long distance services.

  29. 1990s • US Gov’ auctioned off cell spectrum • 1996 Telecom act • ILEC • CLEC

  30. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 • The Act codified requirements for the interconnection of all local exchange carriers. These policies included: • Interconnecting with other service providers and not imposing any barriers to interconnection • Enabling nondiscriminatory resale of their services to competitors • Providing number portability, or the ability of telecommunications service users to retain their same telephone number without hampering the quality, reliability, or convenience of their phone service • Allowing competitors to access and connect to their facilities

  31. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 • To increase competition in local phone service, the Act placed the following requirements on all ILECs: • Negotiating interconnection agreements in good faith • Providing competitors with the same type and quality of access to their facilities that they themselves could obtain at their cost • Providing competitors with access to subscriber information, such as telephone numbers and billing data • Offering nondiscriminatory, wholesale prices for telecommunications services to all competitors

More Related